Monitoring the Governance Dimension of Natural Resource Co-management

By G. Cundill, Christo Fabricius. 2010

137 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The governance outcomes of natural resource co-management have been neither systematically monitored nor rigorously assessed. We identified system attributes and key variables that could form the basis for monitoring the governance dimension of adaptive co-management. A methodology for collaboratively monitoring these system attributes and key variables was tested in four localities in South Africa. Our results suggest that creating the conditions that facilitate self-organization, and particularly cross-scale institutional linkages, is the major challenge facing attempts to initiate adaptive co-management. Factors requiring greater attention include community perceptions of support from outside agencies, access to long-term funding for adaptive decision making, and access to reliable information about changes in natural resources and legal options for the formation of decision-making bodies. Longterm and well-funded social facilitation is key to achieving this.

Subfields: Building and Construction, Finance, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9cd170c6a331048d5d0acf6b5f2b9937f84039ce

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Building and Construction

1. Carl Folke
2. R. Plummer
3. H. Vredenburg
4. G. Marshall
5. Romina Rodela

In Finance

1. R. Turner
2. H. Vredenburg
3. G. Marshall
4. R. Plummer
5. Frances Westley

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Ö. Bodin
2. Carl Folke
3. R. Plummer
4. D. Armitage
5. P. Olsson
6. Frances Westley
7. Victor Galaz
8. J. Baird

Citations in the corpus

• Trust, confidence, and equity affect the legitimacy of natural resource governance (2016, background): “…stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy in natural resource governance will also benefit from systematic and periodic monitoring of legitimacy indicators such as trust, as this enables managers to detect changes in specific areas or stakeholder groups (Cundill and Fabricius 2010, Turner et al. 2014).”
• Tipping Toward Sustainability: Emerging Pathways of Transformation (2011, background): “…et al. 2006), in many others new integrated management systems, like adaptive co-management and ecosystem-based management, are emerging and being institutionalized around the world (Garaway and Arthur 2004; Armitage et al. 2007; Olsson et al. 2008; Berkes 2009; Cundill and Fabricius 2010).”
• Is Adaptive Co-management Delivering? Examining Relationships Between Collaboration, Learning and Outcomes in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves (2017, background): “A clear tension is evident between enthusiasm for ACM and critiques of its outcomes (Plummer and Armitage, 2007a; Cox et al., 2010; Cundill and Fabricius, 2010).”
• Transaction costs, collective action and adaptation in managing complex social–ecological systems (2013, background): “More generally, claims that institutional arrangements like adaptive governance or adaptive co-management (e.g. Cundill and Fabricius 2010) strengthen collective adaptive capacities imply that institutional lock-in costs are reduced by implementing such arrangements.”
• A major shift to the retention approach for forestry can help resolve some global forest sustainability issues (2012, background): “A key aspect of the above definition is the emphasis on long-term retention of structures or small forest patches, which distinguishes the retention approach from conventional, uneven-aged selection management or even-aged Conservation Letters 0 (2012) 1–11 Copyright and Photocopying: c©2012 Wiley P”